That's not particularly surprising to hear from someone outside the field. But the basic definition is very simple: A serial is a publication which is (1) issued in parts (2) that carry some kind of enumeration (i.e. sequential piece designation, not always numeric) and (3) is intended to continue indefinitely.
Sure, and there's no problem knowing that "One L" is a monograph and the Harvard Law Review is a serial. But there are some (to me) gray areas in legal publications, at least, especially since they're often revised in place. ("Here's your replacement volume 22." "Here's volumes 22, 22A, and 22B" "We've renumbered! Here's volumes 25, 29, and 35 that cover subsets of the topic formerly covered by 22, which now covers...") Depending on the organizational format, maybe they can tack on new volumes at the end, maybe they can't, and maybe they do anyway. The title may or may not decide to change from 2d ed to 3d ed. at some arbitrary point during this process, and you may have both versions interfiled on the shelf. Similarly, looseleafs may or may not add volumes in the course of their updates, but they're generally serials except when they're not. And what look like monographs can have serialized updates or supplements.
I'm certain the distinction is resolved in a systematic manner from a cataloging perspective. But in practice it means that for me whether a particular publication is a monograph or a serial can be something of an empirical one to discover.
That's exacerbated by the fact that except for occasional projects like the aforementioned, the distinction isn't usually key to anything I'm normally doing. (I may care, e.g., whether something's likely to be current, but that could be a 2011 journal article or 2011 monograph or a 1990 monograph with a 2011 annual pocket part.)
Re: Shoptalk
Sure, and there's no problem knowing that "One L" is a monograph and the Harvard Law Review is a serial. But there are some (to me) gray areas in legal publications, at least, especially since they're often revised in place. ("Here's your replacement volume 22." "Here's volumes 22, 22A, and 22B" "We've renumbered! Here's volumes 25, 29, and 35 that cover subsets of the topic formerly covered by 22, which now covers...") Depending on the organizational format, maybe they can tack on new volumes at the end, maybe they can't, and maybe they do anyway. The title may or may not decide to change from 2d ed to 3d ed. at some arbitrary point during this process, and you may have both versions interfiled on the shelf. Similarly, looseleafs may or may not add volumes in the course of their updates, but they're generally serials except when they're not. And what look like monographs can have serialized updates or supplements.
I'm certain the distinction is resolved in a systematic manner from a cataloging perspective. But in practice it means that for me whether a particular publication is a monograph or a serial can be something of an empirical one to discover.
That's exacerbated by the fact that except for occasional projects like the aforementioned, the distinction isn't usually key to anything I'm normally doing. (I may care, e.g., whether something's likely to be current, but that could be a 2011 journal article or 2011 monograph or a 1990 monograph with a 2011 annual pocket part.)