Many things are possible, but not all are meaningful. The question you should ask is "what is meaningful". In my language, "Colors with Information" doesn't look like a meaningful fact type. "ColorSet includes Color", "Color is represented by RGBValue", etc, look like more meaningful things to say.
You should almost never use a plural name. If WebsiteDesignElements is intended to collect a group of disparate Elements (for example as a Theme), name it WebSiteElementCollection or WebSiteTheme, and also consider using a supertype WebSiteElement for the kinds of Element.
Also the way you have it implies that the same instance of "Information" can meaningfully be linked to more than one of the other types, and I'm quite sure that's wrong (unless "Information" is a free-form comment or something, but eve then...)
It looks like part of an attribute-oriented metaschema, and seems quite unlike a fact-based schema might look.
Your identification patterns seem to be created to hide meaning also. What is a "C"? A "GS"? An "I"? These things should have meaningful names. The fact that you haven't used meaningful names make me wonder whether you've yet decided what they mean. You certainly don't seem to intend someone else to know what they mean. Start again, using the exact sentences you'd use to describe your problem domain to a smart newcomer. From those fact examples, extract the verbalisations you use for each fact type, and turn those into a model.