Blockchain doesn't inherently do any data translation or normalization.
It's interesting to me how resilient this misconception is. I have come to the conclusion that it's just wishful thinking for a magic bullet for an age-old difficult problem.
It was there with Big Data ("Who cares? Just throw it in a data lake!").
It was there with NoSQL ("Who cares? Just throw it in a document store!")
It was there with XML ("XML is just one format, right?")
It was there with COM/CORBA/AppleScript/etc ("The vendor can make their own data readable!")
I wouldn't be surprised if, millennia ago, there were organizations trying to figure out how fluted spear heads might solve their communication woes.
That reminds me so hard of RDF/"linked data", which was (and is still in some sectors) popular for same motivation I think.
Data interoperability is a real problem, with real pain, which is why people get so excited about tech they think will solve it. But no magic technology is going to solve it, it's a human problem. (At least I can see _why_ people (wrongly) thought RDF would; no idea how they arrived at that misconception of blockchain).
There was briefly the bad idea that "NoSQL means we don't have to care about our schemas anymore" bridging the other two bad ideas.