I think, by default, it's safer to assume that unless a book specifically identifies itself as a serial, people will assume it is not. Don't you?
But it does
specifically identify itself as part of Star Trek: The Fall
. It doesn't say DS9 on the cover, it says The Fall
. It's not hard to guess that that's the title of a miniseries. It's separate from the title Revelation and Dust
, so it's clearly part of a larger whole to which RaD belongs; yet the title The Fall
sounds like a reference to a specific event or process rather than an ongoing status quo, so it doesn't suggest an open-ended series. So if you see a book titled Star Trek: The Fall
followed by an individual book title, it's pretty easy to deduce that it's one installment of a limited series of books focusing on a specific event.
I can sympathize with your argument about wanting a book to be complete within itself even if it's part of a larger arc. I tend to feel the same way, as a general rule (though I haven't read this book yet so I don't know if I'd share your perception of it). But I can't agree with you that this book is somehow hiding the fact that it's part of an arc. The title alone indicates that.