Description 

As mentioned in the "Aleph to Alma Migration Guide" under Purchase Order Migration Rules it says - "subscriptions from Aleph's Z16 (subscriptions) with no order reference and still active will be migrated as basic Alma orders since subscriptions are implemented as orders in Alma. It is recommended that Z16 active subscriptions are linked to Z68 orders prior to migration in Aleph as not doing so will yield Alma orders..." 

 1) Is it correct to assume that an "active" subscription in Aleph is one that has a z16_copy_to_date later than today? 

 2) And that a subscription not linked to an order means the z16_order_number is blank? 

Many of our campuses do seem to have "active" non-linked subscription records, some in the 1000s. We think many of them came over this way from our migration to Aleph years ago. 

 3) If we determine that these are no longer needed is it safe to simply delete the z16s via SQL? Or would it be safer to use SQL to set the z16_copy_to_date to an earlier date such as 20171231?
 

Resolution 

 1) Yes. As noted in the z16.pdf document, the z16_copy_to_date is the "Ending date of subscription". 

 2) Yes, a subscription not linked to an order means the z16_order_number is blank. 

 3) Setting the z16_copy_to_date to an earlier date, such as 20171231, would be safer. It appears that, rather than putting in the end-date of the subscription they were paying for (-- probably annual --), staff have used a later date, such as 2050 or 2099. 
 

• Article last edited: 5-Feb-2018