When to apply When data management plans need to move from PDF deliverables into structured records the CRIS, the repository, and the funder portal can read, update, and validate against the RDA DMP Common Standard.
Before you start
Prerequisites
What needs to be in place before you operationalise Machine-actionable data management plans terminology in your CRIS or repository.
- A DMP authoring tool (DMP Tool, DMPonline, Argos, or comparable) that emits RDA DMP Common Standard JSON
- A CRIS that can hold a DMP record alongside the Project entity it belongs to
- Familiarity with the RDA DMP Common Standard schema (dmp, dataset, distribution, host, security_and_privacy, dataset_id)
- An identifier strategy for DMPs themselves — most adopters mint a DMP DOI via DataCite
- Agreement between researchers, librarians, and funders on which DMP sections are required, optional, and machine-validated
Deployment
Five steps to deploy
Each step is small enough to land in a single sprint or a single sitting with the relevant CRIS administrator. Follow in order.
Adopt RDA DMP Common Standard as the canonical interchange format
Even if your authoring tool exports a vendor-specific format, normalise to the RDA Common Standard JSON for storage and exchange. This is the only format that funders, repositories, and aggregators agree on.
Add a DMP entity to the CRIS
A first-class record type linked to Project. Fields: dmp_id (DOI), version, last_modified, contact, ethical_issues_exist, language, datasets (multi-row, each with dataset_id, distribution, license, host, security_and_privacy).
Wire DMP-to-dataset propagation
When a planned dataset in the DMP becomes a real dataset deposit, propagate the DMP's declared license, access classification, and host into the dataset record's defaults — do not make the depositor re-enter what the DMP already declared.
Add validation against funder profile
Each major funder has a DMP profile (NIH 2023, NSF, UKRI, ERC, Horizon Europe). At save time, validate the DMP against the active funder's profile and surface specific missing fields rather than a generic "incomplete" warning.
Pilot DMP versioning across the lifecycle
Pick a real project and verify that the DMP record updates at funded-start, mid-term review, and project end, each version preserved with a DataCite DOI. The final DMP should be discoverable in the institutional repository under its own DOI.
Worked example
Sample workflow
A realistic walk-through of a single record passing through the Machine-actionable data management plans pipeline once the checklist is in production.
Integration points
CRIS and repository systems
Vendor-specific notes on where this vocabulary fits in real research-information systems. Names appear here only where there is public field evidence — they are not vendor partnerships.
Direct RDA Common Standard export; covers a large share of US institutional DMP authoring. Wire the API for automatic CRIS import.
UK-dominant authoring tool with RDA Common Standard JSON export; supports funder-specific templates including UKRI and Horizon Europe.
European authoring tool aligned to OpenAIRE and EOSC; native RDA Common Standard support.
Add DMP as a custom metadata module on the Application or Project entity; the Pure REST API supports DMP JSON ingest.
Federation target — DMP DOIs minted at DataCite become discoverable in DataCite Commons and propagate to OpenAIRE.
What goes wrong in the field
Common pitfalls
The patterns that show up repeatedly when this checklist is skipped or misapplied. Address these before they become entrenched.
- Treating the DMP as a PDF deliverable and discarding the structured JSON the authoring tool produced
- Storing DMP fields freeform in the CRIS so they cannot be validated against a funder profile
- Failing to mint a DMP DOI, leaving no canonical citation for the plan when it is updated
- Letting the DMP and the eventual deposit drift — depositors retype license and access information instead of inheriting from the DMP
- Skipping version preservation so the only DMP that exists is the latest one, breaking audit and funder review
Frequently asked
Implementation FAQ
- Who maintains this checklist?
- The Machine-actionable data management plans working group maintains the checklist alongside the dictionary terms in the same domain. It is reviewed each release cycle (March and September) and updated when a working-group consultation, a vendor product change, or a federation-partner schema update materially changes the operational guidance.
- What if my CRIS or repository is not listed?
- The integration points listed name the systems CASRAI has direct field experience with — Pure, Symplectic Elements, Worktribe, Converis, DSpace and DSpace-CRIS, EPrints, VIVO, Dataverse, Invenio-RDM. The CERIF mapping in the checklist is vendor-neutral and applies equally to other CRIS or repository products. If your system supports the underlying entities (Person, Project, Output, Funding, plus the domain-specific extensions), the steps transfer.
- How do I validate my implementation?
- Three validation surfaces. First, the deposit form should refuse a record missing required fields rather than warn and accept. Second, the resulting metadata should round-trip through the federation layer your institution uses (OpenAIRE Guidelines 4.0 for European federation, DataCite Commons for DOI-anchored discovery, Crossref for article-anchored discovery) without upstream errors. Third, walk a real-world record through the sample-workflow path on this page and confirm the structured fields capture what the prose describes.
- Where do I report errors in the checklist?
- Open a comment via the dictionary-feedback flow at /dictionary/contribute. Editorial corrections — wrong vendor module names, deprecated standards, broken integration paths — are queued into the next release cycle. Substantive disagreements on the operational guidance are routed to the working group for review and may motivate a checklist revision.
- Is this checklist enough to certify my implementation?
- No. The checklist gives you the operational baseline; certification against federation profiles (CoreTrustSeal, OpenAIRE-compliant, COAR-aligned) is a separate process with its own audit. Treat the checklist as the engineering scaffolding and the certification as the institutional sign-off that the scaffolding is being used.
