What is the Hindi, Farsi, Chinese, or Korean version of the German proverb I used in the title of a recent post: “Was dem einen recht ist, ist dem anderen billig” Literally translated, this proverb says: “Whatever is right for one [person] is fair for the other [person].” Or, as English-speakers would say: “Sauce for the goose [female of the species], sauce for the gander [male of the species]”. But what would a speaker of Hindi or Farsi or Chinese or Korean say in his or her own language to make the same point? If enough SDN members take a moment to post the equivalent of this proverb in their own native languages, maybe it would convince Mark and Mark and Marilyn and Craig that it would be worth setting up a forum in which we could all work on creating an “SDN Cross-Language Proverb Dictionary”. The way it would work is that someone would post a proverb in their own language with a literal English translation and then responders would post equivalents in their languages with the literal English translations. (I choose English only because it has been defined as the “base” language for the SDN community.) No points would be awarded, but who knows? Maybe if we got enough proverbs cross-linked in enough languages, SAP Press might get interested in publishing it. (With all profits going to some worthy and non-controversial organization devoted to improving cultural understanding -I’m sure SAP could find one on which we could all agree.) I’m serious about the above idea – I think it’s a neat idea on its own merits. But the results might also be instructive for anyone interested in the general problem of ontology mapping that I was recently discussing with Anton W in this post here: The Diachronic Metadata Repository as a Tool for Risk Reduction via Conflict-Prevention During Legacy-to-ERP Conversions (Part 9) Are there really data strucures or processes in one technological “dialect” that can’t be mapped to their equivalents in another technological “dialect”? I personally don’t think so. It’s just that companies would rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars on failed Legacy -> ERP conversions then to spend much less money on figuring out up front how to map their legacy technological “dialects” into the various dialects of SAP. Which is something I guess I kind of understand – sort of. It’s kind of like the automakers who figure it’s cheaper to settle with the accident victims than to recall the cars and fix the problem.