I've designed a few databases in my time, and on more than one occasion the drive to abstract common elements from specific tables has led me to create generic top-level tables which contain those common elements.  For example:Table      Column         ColumnHamburgers Item           Topping           Cheeseburger   Tomatoes           Mushroomburger SwissCould be simplified (normalized) as:Table      Column         ColumnFoodTypes  ID             Name           1              Hamburger           2              ToppingFood       Item           TypeID           Cheeseburger   1           Mushroomburger 1           Tomatoes       2           Swiss          2Recently I've gone over the deep end with this approach, abstracting and re-abstracting a fairly complex database design until I was left with something both very simple and yet completely un-resembling of the actual data being stored.This has led me to the conclusion that all databases could be summarized in a single monstrous table called Entries with columns:ID       Type     Value1     Value2For example:ID       Type     Value1     Value24321     Item     8746     Descrip  4321       Food5673     Item     9876     Descrip  5673       Hamburger0341     Item     1234     Descrip  0341       Lettuce5478     Relation 5673       03412381     Descrip  5478       Topping2244     Relation 5673       43212160     Descrip  2244       Class4436     Relation 0341       43217547     Descrip  4436       ClassHere, using these 4 columns in 1 table, I have created two objects sharing a common superclass, given them an attribute, and defined not only a relationship between them but the class of that relationship as well.  We could now say Lettuce is a Topping of Hamburger, both of which are Foods.There would of course be a set of rules for this system, but that is beyond the scope of this question.My question is, is this not logically the case?  If so (or if there is a different, correct answer), what is this in relation to real databases?  Does such a system exist, or should it not?I'm not sure if I've gone far enough in my analysis, and I feel like I'm on the verge of some insight which is profoundly obvious to mathematicians and computer scientists (like yes, all relational data can be described in terms of binary operands like F[a, b]).
Are all databases reducible to this ultimate abstract database design?
databases;normal forms
This insight was made at least as far back as 1886, by Alfred Kempe.  In fact, he observed that any set of relationships (not just those that are already relations) can be captured as a binary relation.  At the time this seems to have come as a shock to Charles Sanders Peirce, who had built his relation algebra on the idea that any relation can be captured by means of ternary relations, and who up to this time apparently believed this to be the best possible.  Kempe used graphs to illustrate his notion, while Peirce used edge-labelled graphs.  In a long and admiring review Peirce revised his theories to accommodate binary relations as a possible foundation, and distinguished the two approaches:Mr. Kempe's conception depends upon considering the diagram purely in its self-contained relations, the idea of its representing anything being altogether left out of view; while my doctrine depends upon considering how the diagram is to be connected with nature.In terms of modern database representations, RDF corresponds to Peirce's ternary relations, while key-value stores correspond to Kempe's graphs.  As Raphael pointed out in a comment, these are essentially the ideas behind graph databases.As an aside, the arguments about binary/ternary/quaternary/quinternary/... tuples being the best foundation for data representation still rage on in the W3C semantic web working groups.  I believe that the original insight of the relational model was that for efficiency, one should use relations of the right arity; relationships that are naturally represented as tuples should not be transmogrified into more complicated data structures just for reasons of purity.  However, this argument also goes the other way: relationships where different instances naturally have different arities should not be shoehorned into a rigid relational schema just to preserve the purity of the data model.A. B. Kempe, A Memoir on the Theory of Mathematical Form, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 177, 1886, 170.C. S. Peirce, The Critic of Arguments (1892 essay), in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. III, Harvard University Press, 1933, 250265.