Align GDATP Japanese specifications with tech docs L10n specs (style guide, glossary, prompts)

We are removing product translation specs from GDATP (Remove product translation specs and migrate gl... (#13 - closed)), which will leave us with marketing-only specifications. This is a good time to step back and evaluate our Japanese translation standards, since JA is the only language where we have both product docs translations (comprehensive workflow and AI specs in ech-docs-ai-powered-translation) and GDATP-produced marketing translations.

The goal of the issue collaborate and brainstorm three questions with the team, as input to the future GDATP roadmap.

The questions are (I will add more details and links later, in separate threads on this issue):

  • Should we align GDATP JA style guide with tech docs JA style guide?

We have two separate JA style guides (tech docs and GDATP marketing [will add links soon]). Should we align them, keep them separate, or use some hybrid? Or leave as is?

  • Should GDATP use the same JA termbase as tech docs?

Tech docs has a comprehensive JA termbase managed in Phrase. As part of removing product specs (#13 (closed)), we are moving specifications/product/languages/ja-jp/glossary.csv to replace marketing's termbase.csv. But first, we need to understand: Where did glossary.csv come from? Is it from Phrase or manually created? Should tech docs Phrase termbase be our single source of truth for both docs and marketing? Asking @emikimura-ext already here: #13 (comment 3010301102)

Are there redundancies in the prompt verbiage? Are they needed or do they hinder? After removing the product module, should we audit and streamline the prompt? How? Why or why not?

Edited by Oleksandr Pysaryuk