I haven't been too involved in the discussion of e-portfolios because I think a lot of that discussion is misplaced. This set of observations on the 'reflexion' element is a perfect example. Catherine Howell argues that the definition, in the IMS specification, is fuzzy, and insufficiently distinguished from an assertion. Quite right, but I would go further and ask what the point is of distinguishing between a reflection and an assertion at all, and even what the point is of placing these (via a form???) into an e-portfolio in the first place. It's this whole idea that everything must be contained in a single format rearing its head again. And it's the old idea of thinking of one thing as composed of another (instead consisting of links to other (self-defining) things - see, for example, the second paragraph in this item).