Remove class introduced from other proposal

This patch is motivated by several matters:
1. This class will be introduced (under another name) in the resolution
   of Issue 430.  So, entailing it in this proposal is a risk to this
   proposal's acceptance.
2. The semantics of using the higher-class-than-UcoObject are not
   defined.  Under what conditions is it OK to use a `types:Hash` object
   with this property?  What about a `types:Dictionary`,
   `types:ControlledDictionaryEntry`, or `types:ThreadItem`?

References to `core:ClassBase` will be restored (under its agreed-upon
name alteration, `core:UcoThing`) only after explanation and
demonstration of the semantic issues.

References:
* #430
* #432

Signed-off-by: Alex Nelson <[email protected]>

ontology/uco/configuration/configuration.ttl

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ configuration:ConfigurationEntry
 	rdfs:comment "A configuration entry is a grouping of characteristics unique to a particular parameter or initial setting for the use of a tool, application, software, or other cyber object."@en ;
 	sh:property
 		[
-			sh:class core:ClassBase ;
+			sh:class core:UcoObject ;
 			sh:nodeKind sh:IRI ;
 			sh:path configuration:itemObject ;
 		] ,
@@ -156,11 +156,8 @@ configuration:itemName
 configuration:itemObject
 	a owl:ObjectProperty ;
 	rdfs:comment "The structured value of a configuration setting entry instance."@en ;
-	rdfs:range core:ClassBase ;
-	rdfs:seeAlso
-		<https://github.com/ucoProject/UCO/issues/430> ,
-		<https://github.com/ucoProject/UCO/issues/432>
-		;
+	rdfs:range core:UcoObject ;
+	rdfs:seeAlso <https://github.com/ucoProject/UCO/issues/432> ;
 	.
 
 configuration:itemType